I had a lovely shrimp wrap last night for dinner. Today, I had Gimme Lean fake sausage with my multigrain toast with almond butter and marmalade.

Can't wait to cook my eggs and sausage with some chorizo! Mmmmm

(January 22, 2014 at 3:53 am)Aractus Wrote: This is what you need as a bare minimum:

1. a "control" group from the population of people who: have never smoked (or have only smoked very occasionally) as an adult, do not drink alcohol or coffee at all and have not for the last 5 years or longer, do not take any non-prescription medications, AND perhaps most importantly are neither overweight or underweight.

You can not data mine your control group - which is all the study that you quoted seems to do, and in fact they do not have a proper control group anyway. So you cannot know what the dietary habits of this control group are - at all, it's your control.

Next you need vegetarians that meet the same criteria (don't drink, don't smoke, don't drink caffeine, don't take drugs, and weigh a healthy weight).

Next you need vegans that meet the same criteria.

Then, and only then, do you see whether either of these groups is healthier than your control group.

That by the way is a bare minimum, what I'd prefer to see is a proper controlled trial.

So essentially you are saying that all epidemiology is invalid? Controlled trials are great but it does not invalidate epidemiological studies if they are big enough and are well controlled. It comes down to statistics, and if you have a big enough sample then the results hold true. I

If what you say is true and I am cherry picking, then show some studies that demonstrate that people on well planned vegan diets are unhealthy. You seem to demand of me decades long randomised control trials to show that veganism is healthy, but are happy to accept anecdote in support of your argument.

For randomised control trials, what we do have are studies that look at the effect of vegan diets on disease, eg improving the symptoms of those with type II diabetes and rheumatoid artharitis. Furthermore, if we look at all the observational studies, a vegan diet lowers the risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease risk factors.

The fact is all the available evidence shows that a vegan diet is healthy and is protective against a number of diseases, including some cancers, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and rheumatoid arthritis. Now you may very well be right, and better and bigger studies may come along and over turn all these findings. But until they do the evidence is clear. Veganism is healthy. That's why the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (whose membership includes 150,000 health care professionals) say...

"Vegetarian diets, which contain no meat (beef, pork, poultry, or fish and shellfish), are naturally low in saturated fat, high in fiber, and full of vitamins, minerals, and cancer-fighting compounds. A multitude of scientific studies have shown that vegetarian diets have remarkable health benefits and can help prevent certain diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. We encourage vegetarian diets as a way of improving general health and preventing diet-related illnesses.
Vegan diets, which contain no animal products (meat, dairy, eggs, or other animal products), are even healthier than vegetarian diets. Vegan diets contain no cholesterol and even less fat, saturated fat, and calories than vegetarian diets because they exclude dairy and eggs. Scientific research shows that health benefits increase as the amount of food from animal sources in the diet decreases, making vegan diets the healthiest overall."

The National Health service, America Dietetic Association and PCRM all agree. And for good reason, the evidence shows you are wrong. Eating meat is cruel an unnecessary for health.

(January 22, 2014 at 3:53 am)Aractus Wrote: Try this one:

• 
  
  So, I've been vegan for 5 years, vegetarian for 10 years before that. Here's the problem:
  
  I am allergic to soy, which I have done fine with. Somehow, I've developed a severe peanut allergy, and am starting to show symptoms of other allergies to legumes and nuts. I'm not sure how much longer I can remain vegan and survive.
  
  But I don't want to not be vegan.
  
  Does anyone know of any really useful alternative protein sources? Solutions to the problem? I can go on shots and such, but many of the allergen preventatives are animal tested or animal derived. This is such a pain in the butt.
  
  I suppose I'm writing because the depression of this is simply hitting me so hard, I don't know how to deal with this.

If a physician or nutritionist tells you to eat meat or dairy or take animal-derived supplements for your health, according to you, they'd be wrong?

Yes, they would be wrong. The patient could still acquire complete protein from both mycoprotein and quinoa. Additionally the amino acid that is lacking from grains is lysine, which is made synthetically and sold in supplements. Therefore a diet based on grains, mushrooms, mycoprotein, vegetables and fruits with supplemented lysine and multivitamins would be a very healthy diet indeed. With appropriate monitoring from a trained nutritionist, the patient could acquire all protein from vegan sources.

Additionally, I would also enquire about their vitamin status as B12 deficiency can also cause depression. Are they getting enough iodine and is that causing hypothyroidism. Many things could be affecting the patients health, but none of them need meat to treat these conditions.

---

(January 22, 2014 at 11:02 am)Chuck Wrote: Can you really find no more edifying entertainment than watching carnivores tear apart incautious, uppity, overreaching herbivores?

You mean like when you appeal to nature?

(January 22, 2014 at 10:07 am)Chuck Wrote: An animal won't help us because we helped it to reduce its suffering.

Quote:Chuck Wrote: An animal won't help us because we helped it to reduce its suffering.

To which the obvious answer is.......

Quote:“You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him.”—Malcolm S. Forbes.

@jg2014
It's obvious that animal suffering is not really what you're concerned about. If it were you would be concerned about what one animal does to another but you dismiss that because they are amoral.
The only suffrage that you really care about is your own. YOU are the one that suffers when people eat meat. I can't understand why you feel this way but it is apparent that you do. The thought of me going in the woods, shooting the lungs out of a deer, and enjoying it's tasty flesh makes your eyes water up.
I can tell you that deer did not suffer but you did. Even if the deer had a few seconds of suffering it just doesn't matter once it is dead anyway. It's not like some evil force lingers around because the deer died.

More deer are killed by car accidents then hunters... poor deer. BAN ALL THE CARS!

(January 22, 2014 at 12:36 pm)jg2014 Wrote: You mean like when you appeal to nature?

No, I mean like when we reenact nature.

---

(January 22, 2014 at 1:36 pm)là bạn điên Wrote:

Quote:Chuck Wrote: An animal won't help us because we helped it to reduce its suffering.

To which the obvious answer is.......

Quote:“You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him.”—Malcolm S. Forbes.

When "those" refer to animals, then the character is that of a evolutionary survivor.

---

(January 22, 2014 at 1:52 pm)KUSA Wrote: @jg2014
It's obvious that animal suffering is not really what you're concerned about. If it were you would be concerned about what one animal does to another but you dismiss that because they are amoral.
The only suffrage that you really care about is your own. YOU are the one that suffers when people eat meat. I can't understand why you feel this way but it is apparent that you do. The thought of me going in the woods, shooting the lungs out of a deer, and enjoying it's tasty flesh makes your eyes water up.
I can tell you that deer did not suffer but you did. Even if the deer had a few seconds of suffering it just doesn't matter once it is dead anyway. It's not like some evil force lingers around because the deer died.

Yes, and I am beginning to think unlike with animals, his suffering and those of là bạn điên would be delightfully worthy objective in themselves.

(January 22, 2014 at 1:52 pm)KUSA Wrote: @jg2014
YOU are the one that suffers when people eat meat.

I think the emotion you are describing is called empathy. All I have done is debated, I have not insulted anyone, whereas I have been called a "bitch", "prick", and "pussy" in addition to having been told to "fuck off". Please stop making these nonsense ad hominem attacks, and focus on the debate.

Like slavery, which many people argue it was only abolished because the industrial revolution made it increasingly inefficient, I suspect that eating meat will only ever become out of favour, if at all, when people realise how inefficient it is, how bad it is for the environment, and how bad it is for peoples health.

---

(January 22, 2014 at 2:07 pm)No_God Wrote: More deer are killed by car accidents then hunters... poor deer. BAN ALL THE CARS!

To give you a hint as to why your argument is nonsense, I'll reword it slightly

More children are killed by car accidents then murderers... poor children. BAN ALL THE CARS!

Please tell me you know I was being sarcastic with that comment.

(January 22, 2014 at 3:01 pm)No_God Wrote: Please tell me you know I was being sarcastic with that comment.

I don't think you understood my reply